Land acknowledgements can increase awareness of local Indigenous groups, but they may not substantially change political attitudes toward Indigenous issues, according to new experimental research published in Nature Human Behaviour.
The study tested the effects of land acknowledgements among non-Indigenous adults in Australia and the United States. Across the two main randomised experiments, 1,724 Australian participants and 1,773 US participants were included, giving a combined sample of 3,497 people.
Land acknowledgements increased awareness
Land acknowledgements are formal statements recognising Indigenous custodianship or historical relationships with a particular place. They are widely used in Australia and have increasingly been adopted by organisations in the United States.
The researchers found that exposure to a land acknowledgement increased participants’ awareness of local Indigenous groups. This indicates that the statements can achieve at least one of their most immediate informational aims by making Indigenous presence and history more salient to non-Indigenous audiences.
However, the effects did not extend consistently to broader political attitudes. The experiments found no statistically significant effects across several political outcomes, including collective guilt and support for reparations. Exposure could also reduce interest in Indigenous culture and heritage, showing that increased awareness does not necessarily translate into greater engagement.
Researchers tested the practice in two countries
Lachlan McNamee of Monash University and Kyle Peyton of the University of Melbourne used randomised experiments to estimate the causal effects of land acknowledgements. The Australian experiment included 1,724 non-Indigenous participants, while the US experiment included 1,773 non-Indigenous participants.
Random assignment is important because it allows researchers to compare people exposed to the acknowledgement with an appropriate comparison group while reducing the risk that pre-existing differences between participants explain the results.
The researchers examined outcomes that included knowledge or awareness of Indigenous groups, interest in Indigenous culture and heritage, collective guilt, and support for reparations. The cross-national design also allowed the researchers to examine the practice in Australia, where land acknowledgements originated and are well established, and the United States, where their adoption is more recent.
Institutional reputation also changed
The research went beyond audience attitudes. Additional experiments involving 3,638 participants examined how different institutional actions affected perceptions of organisations facing public scrutiny.
Adopting a land acknowledgement produced small reputational benefits for institutions. More substantive actions, including financial compensation and Indigenous participation in decision-making, produced significantly larger effects on perceptions of corporate social responsibility.
This distinction is central to the study’s interpretation. Symbolic recognition may improve how an organisation is perceived, but the experiments suggest that costlier actions carrying material or decision-making consequences have stronger reputational effects.
What the findings mean
The results challenge the assumption that greater awareness will automatically produce broader political change. A land acknowledgement can successfully communicate information about Indigenous custodianship without necessarily changing views about reparations, responsibility or other contested political questions.
For universities, companies and public institutions, the findings suggest that land acknowledgements should not automatically be treated as substitutes for substantive policy. Institutions seeking measurable changes in public attitudes or perceptions may need to consider how symbolic statements relate to material commitments and Indigenous participation in decision-making.
The results also illustrate why organisations should define what they expect a land acknowledgement to accomplish. If the primary goal is awareness, the evidence indicates that the practice can work. If the objective is to change political attitudes or generate support for reparative policies, the study provides little evidence that a statement alone is sufficient.
Important limitations
The experiments measured responses under research conditions and therefore cannot establish how repeated exposure to land acknowledgements affects attitudes over many years. Effects may also differ according to the wording, speaker, institution, local Indigenous history and participants’ prior familiarity with the practice.
The main experiments focused specifically on non-Indigenous participants. The findings therefore should not be interpreted as evidence about how Indigenous people experience or evaluate land acknowledgements.
Finally, statistically non-significant effects do not prove that an intervention has absolutely no effect in every setting. Rather, the experiments did not provide sufficient evidence of reliable changes in the political attitudes assessed. The study is strongest as evidence about the average causal effects observed in the tested samples and interventions.
Why this research matters
Land acknowledgements have spread rapidly across educational, corporate and public settings, yet their consequences have often been debated without experimental evidence. By testing the practice with thousands of participants in two countries, the study provides evidence that separates informational effects from broader political and reputational effects.
The central finding is nuanced. Land acknowledgements can make local Indigenous groups more visible to non-Indigenous audiences, but awareness alone did not produce significant changes in collective guilt or support for reparations. Meanwhile, organisations received some reputational benefit from adopting the practice, although more substantive actions generated larger effects.
Source Information
Study: Effects of land acknowledgements on non-Indigenous audiences in Australia and the USA
Authors: Lachlan McNamee and Kyle Peyton
Journal: Nature Human Behaviour
Published: 25 September 2026
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-026-02520-6
Study design: Randomised experiments in Australia and the United States, plus additional experiments examining institutional reputation
Main audience sample: 3,497 non-Indigenous adults across Australia and the United States
